Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India Vs. B. Karunakar
EmailAppeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12103 of 1991
Petitioner: Managing Director, Electronic Corporation of India
Respondent: B. Karunakar
Apeal: Special Leave Petition (C) No. 12103 of 1991
Judges: K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, V. RAMASWAMY & YOGESHWAR DAYAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Aug 05, 1991
Appearances:
Mr.P.P. Rao, Senior Advocate, Mr.Kame-shwar Singh and Mr. V. Shekhar, Advocates for the Petitioner.
Mr.B. Rajeshwar Rao and Mr.Vimal Dave, Advocates for the Respondents.
Head Note:
SERVICE AND LABOUR LAW
Constitution of India, 1950:
Article 311(2) first proviso (after 42nd Amendment) – Discipli-nary proceedings – Whether the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the enquiry report? – In view of the conflict in the decisions (JT 1990(4) SC 456 & JT 1988(2) SC 291) of the Court, matter referred to a larger bench.
Cases Reffered:
1. Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, JT 1990(4) SC 456 = 1991 (1) SCC 588. (Para 1)
2. Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P., JT 1988(2) SC 291 = 1988 (3) SCC 600. (Para 1)
2. Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P., JT 1988(2) SC 291 = 1988 (3) SCC 600. (Para 1)
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. In Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P.,JT 1988(2) SC 291 = 1988 (3) SCC 600 it has been observed by a bench of three Judges that the question of furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry in disciplinary proceedings held after Forty second Amendment does not arise. But in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, JT 1990(4) SC 456 = 1991 (1) SCC 588 another bench of three Judges had held to the contrary. In the later case it was observed that we have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view …. In view of this seeming conflict as to the entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer we consider that it is necessary to refer this matter to a larger bench.
2. The special leave is granted only on this question. The papers may be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench.
3. Since the matter is likely to take a long time for disposal of the matter, any stay order would prejudicially effect the interest of the respondent in whose favour there is an order of reinstatement with liberty reserved for continuing the inquiry. We, therefore, direct that respondent be reinstated in service within a month from today with the payment of one half of the back wages.
1. In Kailash Chander Asthana v. State of U.P.,JT 1988(2) SC 291 = 1988 (3) SCC 600 it has been observed by a bench of three Judges that the question of furnishing a copy of the report of enquiry in disciplinary proceedings held after Forty second Amendment does not arise. But in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, JT 1990(4) SC 456 = 1991 (1) SCC 588 another bench of three Judges had held to the contrary. In the later case it was observed that we have not been shown any decision of a coordinate or a larger bench of this Court taking this view …. In view of this seeming conflict as to the entitlement of a copy of the enquiry report to the delinquent officer we consider that it is necessary to refer this matter to a larger bench.
2. The special leave is granted only on this question. The papers may be placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger bench.
3. Since the matter is likely to take a long time for disposal of the matter, any stay order would prejudicially effect the interest of the respondent in whose favour there is an order of reinstatement with liberty reserved for continuing the inquiry. We, therefore, direct that respondent be reinstated in service within a month from today with the payment of one half of the back wages.
